Rajender Kumar v. Indira Gandhi Nati Centre for

ENDLAW, J MARCH 12,2012 pk LPA Nos. 2413/06,2397/06, 1035/11 & 1036/11 Page 9 of9 T

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI _f)_ate o{Decision: 12 1h March, 2012 37. ' + LPA 1035/2011 CHATTAIU) AL SING II ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Varun Prasad versus INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE ARTS ..... Respondent Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. Through: + LPA 1036/2011 38. SUNIL KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Varun Prasad versus INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR TIIE ARTS ..... Respondent Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. Through: + LP A 23 97/2006 47. RAJ ENDER KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Varun Prasad versus ( INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR TI-IE ARTS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. LPA Nos. 2413/06, 2397/06, 1.035/11 & 1036/11 Page 1 of9 _; r:·,- - r l-" + LPA 2413/2006 48. MANOJ KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Varun Prasad versus INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE ARTS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI END LAW A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL): 1. All these appeals have common issue though facts relating to each case may be somewhat different. Since the principle oflaw which has to be applied also remains the same, we have heard all these cases together and are disposing of these appeals by this common judgment. However, we would like to advert to the facts, in brief, appearing in all these cases. LPA 2397/2006 2. The appellant was employed on daily wage basis by the respondent, namely, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts as a peon. He was initially engaged on 18.12.1992. After about three and a half years, his services were terminated by the respondent on 20.6.1996. LPA Nos. 2413/06, 2397/06, 1035/11 & 1036/11 Page 2 of9 . 7" ,- -· The appellant raised industrial dispute challenging the aforesaid termination and also claimed appointment on regular basis. Following reference was made for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal: "(i) Whether the services Shri Rajender J(umar s/o Shri Malik Raman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the nwnagement, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? (ii) Whether Shri Rajender Kumar slo Shri Malik Raman is entitled to be regularization in the proper pay scale and post with the nzanagement, {f so, what directions are necessary in this respect? " ' 3. After completion of pleadings, both the pmiies led their evidence on both the terms of reference reproduced above. , The Industrial Tribunal passed the award holding that the termination of the appellant was illegal and unjustified inasmuch as when he had worked for more than 240 days, even on daily wage basis, his services could not have been terminated without applying the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 .. However, while answering the second term of reference, the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the appellant had failed to show that persons junior to him had been regularized Group-D post from the date of appointment or any other appointment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not LPA Nos. 2413/06, 2397/06, 1035/11 & 1036/11 Page3 of9 ·-, - .... - 1' ;L ,. entitled to regularization and since he was daily wage workman, the Industrial Tribunal denied even the reinstatement and instead observed that an adequate compensation would meet the ends of justice. The Industrial Tribunal also observed that though the termination was in the year 1996, industrial dispute was raised only in the year 2002. A compensation ofRs.5000/- per annum for every completed year from the date of illegal termination till the date of award and a proportionate amount for the remaining uncompleted years was awarded. The appellant challenged this award by filing W.P. No. 12085/2006 which has been dismissed by the leatned Single Judge vide order and judgment dated 31.7.2006 thereby affirming the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The present appeal is against the said order of the lcatned Single Judge. LPA 2413/2006 4. The appella